• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court Rules Schools Allowed To Ban American Flag In Order To Make Schools Safer

The ones south of the border love the American flag. They will risk their lives and everything they own to come here.
The ones south of the border love the chance to make American money, they don't care about the flag. They will risk their lives and everything they own to come here.
 
I would however, put the wearing the American flag on a day to celebrate Mexican heritage was either stupid or intended to get the response it did. Acting to prevent a race war from breaking out may not have been the worst idea in the world.

Only if you assume Latinos are anti-American.
 
Cinco de Mayo should be an American celebration as well as a Mexican one. The students should have been taught what the occasion was all about, then perhaps the juvenile attempt at jingoism could have been avoided.

Napoleon III of France invaded Mexico with the intention of taking it over and then invading the USA from that platform. Since we were in the midst of the Civil war at the time, his plan had a pretty good chance of success.

The French were defeated by Benito Juarez and his forces at the Battle of Puebla on the 5 of May, which is what the day commemorates.

Obviously, some students saw it as some sort of intrusion of Mexican culture into the "real America" or some such nonsense. Mexico and the USA should celebrate that date together.

I never heard of that one before. Where did you read that ?

The United States at the time had the largest military in the world fighting the first modern war.
 
The ones south of the border love the chance to make American money, they don't care about the flag. They will risk their lives and everything they own to come here.

You mean to say that they salute the almighty dollar, and not the flag? How American of them!
 
The ones south of the border love the American flag. They will risk their lives and everything they own to come here.

No they don't. They love the greenback and the free gov't benefits.
 
I never heard of that one before. Where did you read that ?

The United States at the time had the largest military in the world fighting the first modern war.

The battle of Puebla, May 5 1862
The Battle of Puebla took place on 5 May 1862 near the city of Puebla during the French intervention in Mexico. The battle ended in a victory for the Mexican Army over the occupying French forces. The French eventually overran the Mexicans in subsequent battles, but the Mexican victory at Puebla against a much better equipped and larger French army provided a significant morale boost to the Mexican army and also helped slow the French army's advance towards Mexico City.

The Mexican victory is celebrated yearly on the fifth of May. Its celebration is regional in Mexico, primarily in the state of Puebla,[5][6][7][8] where the holiday is celebrated as El Día de la Batalla de Puebla (English: The Day of the Battle of Puebla).[9][10][11] There is some limited recognition of the holiday in other parts of the country. This holiday remains very popular in the United States where it is celebrated annually as Cinco de Mayo.

In 1862, the US was fighting the Confederacy in a civil war.

Napoleon III and the Southern USA:

The Second French Empire remained officially neutral throughout the American Civil War and never recognized the Confederate States of America. The United States had warned that recognition meant war. France was too weak to act alone without British collaboration, and the British rejected intervention. Emperor Napoleon III realized that a war with the U.S. without allies "would spell disaster" for France.[1] However, the textile industry needed cotton, and Napoleon III had imperial ambitions in Mexico which could be greatly aided by the Confederacy. At the same time, other French political leaders, such as Foreign Minister Edouard Thouvenel, favored the United States.

It's not a stretch at all to imagine Napoleon's forces, having a foothold in Mexico, invading the USA and at best prolonging the civil war, or, at worst, taking over the Confederacy. Without Juarez and his army, we could well have a French speaking nation where Dixieland is today.
 
I was listening to some lawyers discussing the 9ths decision this morning on the radio. Only the American flag can be banned not the Mexican flag.

Typical 9th Court decision.

In the city of Santa Ana, Ca. which is mostly Mexican illegal aliens and anchor babies you see 4th of July fireworks stands that fly the Mexican flag instead of the Stars and Stripes.
 
I was listening to some lawyers discussing the 9ths decision this morning on the radio. Only the American flag can be banned not the Mexican flag.

Typical 9th Court decision.

In the city of Santa Ana, Ca. which is mostly Mexican illegal aliens and anchor babies you see 4th of July fireworks stands that fly the Mexican flag instead of the Stars and Stripes.
Maybe this article should be sent to U.S. soldiers stationed overseas, wonder what their reaction would be?
 
Don't you just love the putrid smell of multiculturalism rotting out in the fields? American flags are now seen as a divisive symbol at American public schools:


Today’s Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2014) upholds a California high school’s decision to forbid students from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. . . .

At least one party to this appeal, student M.D., wore American flag clothing to school on Cinco de Mayo 2009. M.D. was approached by a male student who, in the words of the district court, “shoved a Mexican flag at him and said something in Spanish expressing anger at [M.D.’s] clothing.

In the aftermath of the students’ departure from school, they received numerous threats from other students. D.G. was threatened by text message on May 6, and the same afternoon, received a threatening phone call from a caller saying he was outside of D.G.’s home. D.M. and M.D. were likewise threatened with violence, and a student at Live Oak overheard a group of classmates saying that some gang members would come down from San Jose to “take care of” the students. Because of these threats, the students did not go to school on May 7.

We hold that school officials, namely Rodriguez, did not act unconstitutionally, under either the First Amendment or Article I, § 2(a) of the California Constitution, in asking students to turn their shirts inside out, remove them, or leave school for the day with an excused absence in order to prevent substantial disruption or violence at school.​

This is a classic “heckler’s veto” — thugs threatening to attack the speaker, and government officials suppressing the speech to prevent such violence. “Heckler’s vetoes” are generally not allowed under First Amendment law; the government should generally protect the speaker and threaten to arrest the thugs, not suppress the speaker’s speech. But under Tinker‘s “forecast substantial disruption” test, such a heckler’s veto is indeed allowed.​

Oh I feel safer knowing I can be beaten to a pulp because I'm an American. What's next California? Mandatory tacos and burritos for lunch in public schools?
 
Considering the reaction he got, I don't think that assuming a fight would happen is out of the question.

I don't think so either, but the problem isn't with the kids in the America t-shirts. If the group celebrating Cinco de Mayo sees it as mutually exclusive to celebrating American pride then that group can pound sand and celebrate somewhere else.
 
The battle of Puebla, May 5 1862

In 1862, the US was fighting the Confederacy in a civil war.

Napoleon III and the Southern USA:

It's not a stretch at all to imagine Napoleon's forces, having a foothold in Mexico, invading the USA and at best prolonging the civil war, or, at worst, taking over the Confederacy. Without Juarez and his army, we could well have a French speaking nation where Dixieland is today.

The fact that the 6500 French forces lost to 4500 Mexican forces is a pretty clear indicator that the US had little to fear from the French. When Sherman began his march on the south he commanded 62,000 battle hardened troops who would have made mince meat of any French forces trying to interfere or take US land.
 
Last edited:
The battle of Puebla, May 5 1862


In 1862, the US was fighting the Confederacy in a civil war.

Napoleon III and the Southern USA:



It's not a stretch at all to imagine Napoleon's forces, having a foothold in Mexico, invading the USA and at best prolonging the civil war, or, at worst, taking over the Confederacy. Without Juarez and his army, we could well have a French speaking nation where Dixieland is today.

It's a long stretch.

And there's no way Great Britain would allow France to intervene.

There's a British connection to leading up to the Civil War. They were playing both sides. It was all about the cotton trade.

Mexico has always been a basket case and still is today. Mexico has been invaded by foreign military forces five times since they gained their independence from Spain. Once by France, once by Great Britain and three times by the United States. They say that's why Mexico has an inferiority complex. When people have an inferiority complex, they run away from their problems. In Mexico's case they run towards El Norte. The only problem being, they bring their problems with them.
 
Oh I feel safer knowing I can be beaten to a pulp because I'm an American. What's next California? Mandatory tacos and burritos for lunch in public schools?

It's already mandatory that tacos, burritos and chilies be served in many of the county jails in California.
 
Maybe this article should be sent to U.S. soldiers stationed overseas, wonder what their reaction would be?

If they were to react, the Obama administration would have them court martialed and drummed out of the service for violating liberal PC sensitivity regulations.
 
. When Sherman began his march on the south he commanded 62,000 battle hardened troops who would have made mince meat of any French forces trying to interfere to take US land.

They were, however, slightly preoccupied....
 
It's not a stretch at all to imagine Napoleon's forces, having a foothold in Mexico, invading the USA and at best prolonging the civil war, or, at worst, taking over the Confederacy.

Look at the force levels. Simply because a scenario can be conjured up in one's imagination (not yours, but a historian's) doesn't make it plausible. Hey, Canada might take over the United States too. It has an an entire military establishment with troops and equipment parked right on our Northern border.

How does France replenish troops, how does France resupply, how does France keep secure the supply lines from Veracruz up into the American Southwest? Can their landed troops simultaneously keep control of Mexico and launch a land war?
 
I would however, put the wearing the American flag on a day to celebrate Mexican heritage was either stupid or intended to get the response it did. Acting to prevent a race war from breaking out may not have been the worst idea in the world.

Who started the violence in this "race war"?

The culture may do for California what it did for Mexico.
 
Don't you just love the putrid smell of multiculturalism rotting out in the fields? American flags are now seen as a divisive symbol at American public schools:


Today’s Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2014) upholds a California high school’s decision to forbid students from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. . . .

At least one party to this appeal, student M.D., wore American flag clothing to school on Cinco de Mayo 2009. M.D. was approached by a male student who, in the words of the district court, “shoved a Mexican flag at him and said something in Spanish expressing anger at [M.D.’s] clothing.

In the aftermath of the students’ departure from school, they received numerous threats from other students. D.G. was threatened by text message on May 6, and the same afternoon, received a threatening phone call from a caller saying he was outside of D.G.’s home. D.M. and M.D. were likewise threatened with violence, and a student at Live Oak overheard a group of classmates saying that some gang members would come down from San Jose to “take care of” the students. Because of these threats, the students did not go to school on May 7.

We hold that school officials, namely Rodriguez, did not act unconstitutionally, under either the First Amendment or Article I, § 2(a) of the California Constitution, in asking students to turn their shirts inside out, remove them, or leave school for the day with an excused absence in order to prevent substantial disruption or violence at school.​

This is a classic “heckler’s veto” — thugs threatening to attack the speaker, and government officials suppressing the speech to prevent such violence. “Heckler’s vetoes” are generally not allowed under First Amendment law; the government should generally protect the speaker and threaten to arrest the thugs, not suppress the speaker’s speech. But under Tinker‘s “forecast substantial disruption” test, such a heckler’s veto is indeed allowed.​

I see you got that part, why didn't you quote the paragraph right before that one?

On Cinco de Mayo in 2009, a year before the events relevant to this appeal, there was an altercation on campus between a group of predominantly Caucasian students and a group of Mexican students. The groups exchanged profanities and threats. Some students hung a makeshift American flag on one of the trees on campus, and as they did, the group of Caucasian students began clapping and chanting “USA.” A group of Mexican students had been walking around with the Mexican flag, and in response to the white students’ flag-raising, one Mexican student shouted “f*** them white boys, f*** them white boys.” When Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez told the student to stop using profane language, the student said, “But Rodriguez, they are racist. They are being racist. F*** them white boys. Let’s f*** them up.” Rodriguez removed the student from the area….

Sounds like some other folks were spoiling for a right, and that they were using the American flag to do so. I think the school was right to stop such displays before the situation become violent. Just because you're using an American, or Mexican flag, to incite violence doesn't mean you're untouchable.
 
I see you got that part, why didn't you quote the paragraph right before that one?



Sounds like some other folks were spoiling for a right, and that they were using the American flag to do so. I think the school was right to stop such displays before the situation become violent. Just because you're using an American, or Mexican flag, to incite violence doesn't mean you're untouchable.

I knew there was more to this story.

Let's face it, this thread was created by cons specifically to rant about Mexicans.
 
They were, however, slightly preoccupied....

There was almost no southern opposition at that point. Hell, even the Confederate troops that Sherman was steamrolling were superior to the French force. There is nothing the French could have done in that time to solidify any gains in the Southern states. Especially since, in hindsight, they couldn't even defeat 4,500 Mexican troops.

So yeah, IF the French had a descent army on the Continent then things might look different today. But history shows us that the French didn't have a descent army on the continent.

IF the French had the kind of army capable of taking and holding ground in the face of the Union Army then... that French army would have crushed Juarez. That French Army is fictitious.
 
I would however, put the wearing the American flag on a day to celebrate Mexican heritage was either stupid or intended to get the response it did. Acting to prevent a race war from breaking out may not have been the worst idea in the world.

if you want to have a Mexican flag out side of Mexico you should let people display whatever dam flag they choose only fair
 
It's obvious the administrators saw this coming, the school's hispanic side has a history of violence. A better way to go, since it is an American school and not a Mexican one would have been to preemptively require all students to wear or carry an American flag for the school day. Also, the school admins were dertelict in their duty. If they thought there was a safety issue (and they've argued they did) they should have had the police gang unit camped out there.

Sounds like the school is more interested in protecting hoodlums than they are in their student's freedom and education.

nah making people carry a flag is even worse then banning one
 
Back
Top Bottom